understanding analogy & metaphor

1

Relational frame theorists have employed the concept of relating relations, as the basic process underlying the understanding and construction of analogies and metaphors

At its most basic, Barnes, Hegarty and Smeets (1997) proposed a model of analogical reasoning that involved responding in accordance with equivalence-equivalence relations (i.e. the relating together of derived equivalence relations)

Understanding Understanding Analogy & MetaphorAnalogy & Metaphor

Equivalent

APPLE

SHEEPPEACH

DOG

Equivalence-Equivalence

Equivalent

2

3

The previous example involved the derivation of arbitrary stimulus relations

But analogies and metaphors also appear to abstract out non-arbitrary relations among events

Consider the analogy “Apple is to Peach as Dog is to Sheep”

This abstracts out specific non-arbitrary properties that pertain to each of the two sets of relations

Arbitrary & Non-arbitrary Arbitrary & Non-arbitrary RelationsRelations

4

Crels

Round, juicy, edible

Equivalent

APPLE

SHEEPPEACH

DOG

Equivalence-Equivalence

Equivalent

The analogy then also allows two sets of non-arbitrary properties to function as Crels for the two equivalence relations

Crels

Rou nd, juicy, edible

Crels

Hairy, four legs

Crels

Hairy, four legs

5

So, two of the central features of the RFT theoretical and empirical model of analogy and metaphor are:

Relations between derived arbitrary relations

Relating based on the abstraction of non-arbitrary properties

Understanding Understanding Analogy & MAnalogy & Meetaphor taphor

6

Because the relating of the derived relations most often involves a relation of co-ordination, it is common that individuals experience this as a novel insight or “Aha!”

And this of course, may be based on the fact that the two related events give rise to similar somatic outcomes, such as the same feeling


7

However, it is errroneous to think of analogies/metaphors as simply the compounding of two relations of co-ordination, especially when the metaphors in question are used for clinical purposes

There may be multiple stimulus relations within the networks

That is, these are substantive relational networks, that require sophisticated verbal histories of shared knowledge and experience

Take a look at this . . .


8

Struggling with Anxiety is Like Struggling in Quicksand

EQUIVALENT & CAUSAL

Struggle with anxiety

Panic Attack

Struggle in quicksand

Drowning

CAUSALRELATION

CAUSALRELATION

Arbitrary Crel for Co-ordination

Can’t breathe

More tension

Choking

Can’t breathe

Rumination

Somatic tension

Thrashing

Exhaustion

9

Of course, metaphors are practically useless for clinical purposes if they fail to facilitate a new perspective and/or behaviour change

And thus some specific transformations of function must be targeted with the relational networks and in such a way that they make the behaviour change seem feasible


10

Try to think in precise and simplistic terms about the client’s:

existing relational network (think of this as the target)

the types of relations contained therein

the non-arbitrary properties that are abstracted and the transformations of function that currently occur

Constructing Good Constructing Good Clinical MClinical Meetaphors taphors

11

Non-arbitrary properties often allow us to identify the functions that are present and the ways in which these get transformed

In the previous quicksand analogy, the tension functions attached to struggling with anxiety are transformed to more tension with a panic attack through the causal relation between the struggle and its outcome

In this case, the client will recognise that the struggle only makes her worse but she can’t help it

So, this sense of helplessness is another function attached to the struggle that you didn’t see initially


12

What you also cannot see, and this shows just how big these networks are, are the co-ordination relations among many of these events

For example, when the client feels helpless about struggling with anxiety, this struggle is co-ordinated with who she is and so when she is helpless with anxiety, who she is as a whole human being is helpless, and when she sees this it is causally related to feeling more helpless, and so on and so on

But we will get to fusion and perspective-taking later, the point here is that these events are not separable, these problematic relational networks tell us and our clients about who they feel they ‘really’ are


13

Once you have identified your client’s existing relational network (the target), you then construct the relational network that will form the analogy or metaphor (the vehicle)

Remember, the closer your vehicle matches the target relationally and in terms of the current and perspective/solution-based transformations of function, the better will be your metaphor and the greater likelihood of behaviour change

At its simplest, you first need to ask yourself what is the client’s specific problem and what am I trying to do with this?


14

It’s as if there’s a chessboard going out in all directions. It’s covered with black and white pieces that work as two teams, where the white pieces fight against the black. Think of your thoughts as these pieces, they hang out in teams too. For example, “bad” feelings (e.g. anxiety) hang out with “bad” thoughts. Same with the “good” ones. The way the game is played is that we select which side we want to win and put the “good” pieces (e.g. feeling self-confident) on one side and the bad pieces on the other. Then we get up on the white queen and ride to battle, fighting to win the war against “bad” content. It’s a war game and huge portions of yourself are your own enemy. And if you’re on the same level as these pieces, they can even be bigger than you, even though they are in you. And sometimes the more you fight the bigger they can seem to get, more central to your life, more dominating. So you try to knock them off the board, to dominate them instead. Except your experience tells you that the opposite happens. You have a sense that you can’t win. Yet living in a war zone is a miserable way to live.

The Chessboard The Chessboard

15

Struggling with Thoughts is Like Playing Chess

EQUIVALENT & CAUSAL

Use black pieces to fight white

Keep playing Keep losing

Struggle with bad thoughts

?????????????

CAUSALRELATION

CAUSALRELATION

PointlessPointless

Looks hopeful to beginSeems logical

Exhausting & repetitive

Struggle with bad feelings

16

It’s as if there’s a chessboard going out in all directions. It’s covered with black and white pieces that work as two teams, where the white pieces fight against the black. Think of your thoughts as these pieces, they hang out in teams too. For example, “bad” feelings (e.g. anxiety) hang out with “bad” thoughts. Same with the “good” ones. The way the game is played is that we select which side we want to win and put the “good” pieces (e.g. feeling self-confident) on one side and the bad pieces on the other. Then we get up on the white queen and ride to battle, fighting to win the war against “bad” content. It’s a war game and huge portions of yourself are your own enemy. And if you’re on the same level as these pieces, they can even be bigger than you, even though they are in you. And sometimes the more you fight the bigger they can seem to get, more central to your life, more dominating. So you try to knock them off the board, to dominate them instead. Except your experience tells you that the opposite happens. You have a sense that you can’t win. Yet living in a war zone is a miserable way to live.

The Chessboard The Chessboard

17

Target networks

Specific/multiple stimulus relations

Non-arbitrary properties and transformations of function

Behaviour change


Once we have language, we will become someone

And that stability of self has many advantages, including discriminating our own goals and values, and tracking if our behaviour is going in that direction

But there is no way of avoiding painful self-recriminations and evaluations, especially relative to others, and thus building problematic and painful relational networks

This does not mean, however, that we cannot be more than these evaluations, and thus they need not drive our behaviour

Just like the house is so much more than the furniture, we are so much more than our thoughts and feelings, and they do not need to be us . . .

18

Concluding Comments Concluding Comments

Mairéad Foody & Yvonne Barnes-Holmes

Try to think in precise and simplistic terms about the client’s:

1. existing relational network (think of this as the target)

2. the types of relations contained therein

3. the non-arbitrary properties that are abstracted and the transformations of function that currently occurur

X year-old female

I am a horrible person I am so selfish

Co-ordination relations with horrible and selfish person (i.e., fusion with negative content)

Sometimes she mentioned things like “but sometimes I think a little part of me thinks I am good”

So some perspective-taking and/or distinction relations

A sense of being stuck Frustration Tired Fed-up Overwhelmed

Many negative evaluations that she thinks are all true of her

They are tied and stuck together so tightly Like a bundle of knots that are hard to unravel….

Imagine its Christmas time and you have to decorate the Christmas tree. Thetree you have doesn’t look very nice. It’s old and boring and seems like it willdie soon. You go up to the attic and take down a box of decorations.This is the same box that you stuffed away last year, hoping not to have to dealwith them again. But you decide this time it will be different. This time you willhave a really nice Christmas tree like to show off to everyone. So your strategyis to sit down low on the floor so you can get a good look at the things in thebox. You think if I can get as close into this box as possible I will be able to gothrough it carefully. You know there are nice ones in there. There are brightones, dark ones, expensive ones, antique ones. Even ones that play music.You take out some lights and go about unraveling them.

Vs.

Soon you get frustrated because the lights are old and there are too many knots, so you leave them and look for new ones. As time goes on you find more and more bundles of lights that are too old, too boring and have too many knots. Every time you decide to leave one set and start on a new set there is a little hope that the next ones will be the ones that will make the tree look fantastic. But this never happens. Eventually you end up on the floor with bundles of lights and decorations all around you. The mess is too much now. It seems impossible to sort these decorations out. You decide to bundle them all up and stuff them back in the box like you did last year.

Stuck

Frustrated

Overwhelmed

Tired

Fed up

28

Struggling with Thoughts is Like Playing Chess

EQUIVALENT & CAUSAL

Use black pieces to fight white

Keep playing Keep losing

Struggle with bad thoughts

?????????????

CAUSALRELATION

CAUSALRELATION

PointlessPointless




29

Figuring out bad Thoughts is Like Unraveling sets of knotted Christmas tree lights

EQUIVALENT & CAUSAL

Trying to unknot bundles of lights

End up with more knots

Keep losing

Trying to figure out bad thoughts

End up with more negative thoughts

CAUSALRELATION

CAUSALRELATION

PointlessPointless




understanding analogy & metaphor

Documents

derived arbitrary relations

derived relations

relations of coordination

derived equivalence

arbitrary crel

multiple stimulus relations

ediblethe analogy

analogy apple